FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-01-2003, 12:25 AM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,038
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ
For some reason, I keep getting a "Cannot Find Page" error type thingie. Hmm... any suggestions?
It loaded pretty slow for me, the server is probably pretty loaded.

Anywho, from the site:

Quote:
1. The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.
The Illiad has stood the test of time, hail Zeus!
dirkduck is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 12:41 AM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Heaven
Posts: 6,980
Default

Got it to work--stupid computer internet speed.

Anyhow, this one has given me a bit of a problem:

Quote:
88.HUMAN SKULL #1470
Now, when a Christian scientist finds a human bone or footprint next to a dinosaur, evolutionists cry out "fraud!" Of course, because it would upset everything. But what happens when an acclaimed evolutionist finds the bones? (well, presumably, he doesn't tell anyone) Human Skull #1470, was dated by evolutionists to be 2.8 Million Years Old. Most text books state that the first man did not appear until One Million Years ago. But the real problem is that the bones are said to be even more modern than Pithecanthropus, Homo Erects, Java Man, Peking Man, and Australopithecus, our presumed man-like ancestors, but by these findings they can not be our ancestors. Richard Leaky, its discoverer said in San Diego. "What we have discovered simply wipes out everything we have been taught about human evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place." He doesn't, but the Bible does.
Can anyone slay this beast?
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 01:59 AM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NAS Atlanta
Posts: 2,104
Default

Quote:
67. Common Sense

Common sense would dictate that any highly organized mechanism, capable of performing complex tasks, beautiful and elegant must have a designer. Random chance does not produce highly structured order.
Hmm, hurricanes, tornados, crystals, tide pools, magnetic fields, etc.

Gamer4Fire is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 06:46 AM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ
Can anyone slay this beast?
Quote:
88.HUMAN SKULL #1470
Now, when a Christian scientist finds a human bone or footprint next to a dinosaur, evolutionists cry out "fraud!"
Funny, that. Might it be because, time and again, ‘fraud’ is precisely what it is. Have a browse round TalkOrigins. Creationist fraud is well documented.
Quote:
Of course, because it would upset everything.
Nope, because it’s fraud
Quote:
But what happens when an acclaimed evolutionist finds the bones? (well, presumably, he doesn't tell anyone)
Doesn’t tell anyone, except for talking about it in San Diego...
Quote:
Human Skull #1470, was dated by evolutionists to be 2.8 Million Years Old.
KNM-ER 1470 (that is, Kenya National Museum, from East Rudolf region, reference number 1470, for those who don’t know. I didn’t, till I got into all this a few years back. KNM-WT is ‘West Turkana’ as in KNM-WT 15000, ‘Turkana Boy’; OH, as in the OH24 skull, is ‘Olduvai Hominid’. And so on.) ... erm, 1470 is actually dated by evolutionists as being 1.8my. So they’re out by a whole million years, or 35%. And it’s a Homo habilis (or rudolfensis).
Quote:
Most text books state that the first man did not appear until One Million Years ago.
Please cite. And please define ‘first man’. All the textbooks I’ve seen put modern humans at only a couple of hundred thousand years max. Does this mean that this creationist considers the Broken Hill heidelbergensis, and Homo erectus, as being truly human?
Quote:
But the real problem is that the bones are said to be
Said by whom?
Quote:
even more modern than Pithecanthropus
... a term that’s not generally been used for decades. It was given by Dubois to the Trinil fossils in 1891... and they’re normally assigned to Homo erectus these days.
Quote:
Homo Erects, Java Man, Peking Man
Yeah, all erectus...
Quote:
and Australopithecus
Oh, ho ho! 1470 is more modern than the A’piths?!

KNM-ER 1470 is skull F in the picture below. It has a cranial capacity of



For comparison, there’s two Australopithecines there too. They’re skulls B and C (STS 5, ‘Mrs Ples’, dated to 2.6my, and with a cranial capacity of 485cc, and STS 71, dated to 2.5my, and with a cranial capacity of 428cc.

Those skulls -- except first and last, which are modern -- are in chronological order.

So please define ‘more modern’!
Quote:
our presumed man-like ancestors, but by these findings they can not be our ancestors.
Does it look more like N than L and M do? Does it look more like A than B and C do?

Case closed, and laughed out of court.
Quote:
Richard Leaky, its discoverer said in San Diego. "What we have discovered simply wipes out everything we have been taught about human evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place."
Sounds more than a little out of context. Given everything else Richard Leakey has said and written, I’d like the context of this before giving it any credence. In other words, till we know what Leakey was talking about, that sentence is irrelevant. (Given the already-noted tendency of creationists to simply copy what other creationists have written, without checking themselves, I’d be surprised if anyone knows where this quote came from!)

On that last matter, it seems that the list under discussion was lifted wholesale from this page, typo mistakes (“Homo Erects”) and all. Hmmm.
Quote:
He doesn't, but the Bible does.
Erm, so the bible can explain the above pic then, can it?

Will that do, Jesus-TDC?

Cheers, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 08:30 AM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Default

Howdy.

Oolon, I think that there are a few corrections for your otherwise good post on the hominid fossils. The fossil "A" is also an Australopithecus afarensis, "B" is A. africanus. "C" could also be A. africanus. One could have the impression that the afarensis skull was not Australopithicus from your text. The cranial capasity of KNM-ER 1470 is ~750 cc.

This TalkOrigins page, Creationist arguments: Homo habilus , addresses the Leakey quote. You are quite correct that the quote was obsolete, and taken out of context.

Oh, and the KNM-ER 1470 fossil was discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, not Leakey.

Oh, the creationists cannot spell Leakey either.
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 08:54 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Posts: 1,255
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Arken
Fact? I don't think so.

Beliefs of the Christian Identity movement.
Er, yes. I know. Sarcasm and all that. There were huge numbers of good Christian folk who justified slavery on a Biblical basis; meanwhile, Darwin was a committed and vehement abolitionist. Hence my post.

On the other hand, thanks for posting a link to the most depressing thing I've read today.
mecca777 is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 08:55 AM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Default

Dr. GH,

Here is the actual legend to the picture. Note that A is a modern Chimp not A. afarensis.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
RufusAtticus is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 09:16 AM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Default

Hi Doc!
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr.GH
Oolon, I think that there are a few corrections for your otherwise good post on the hominid fossils. The fossil "A" is also an Australopithecus afarensis, "B" is A. africanus. "C" could also be A. africanus. One could have the impression that the afarensis skull was not Australopithicus from your text.
Erm, yeah, one could, since it's a P troglodytes . I do like the idea that it could be mistaken for an afarensis though!
Quote:
The cranial capasity of KNM-ER 1470 is ~750 cc.
Ah, many thanks. That's called 'leave a space to fill in after looking it up, then forgetting all about it'.

And thanks for the TO link. I should have tried there, but a Google for a chunk of the text brought up only cretinist sites .
Quote:
Oh, and the KNM-ER 1470 fossil was discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, not Leakey.
If you say so, but Leakey led the expedition . According to the Smithsonian site at least; I'll see what Klein says tonight.
Quote:
Oh, the creationists cannot spell Leakey either.
True. 'Leaky' is what their logic is.

Cheers, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 09:17 AM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Default Opps.

I must check my eyes. Thanks.

Contrast this A. afarensis

For some reason, I recalled that afarensis has a post orbital suculus. Oh Well!
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 09:28 AM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
And thanks for the TO link. I should have tried there, but a Google for a chunk of the text brought up only cretinist sites .
Hmmm. Have now read the link.... and am still none the wiser about the actual source of the Leakey quote. But this bit of TO explains how 1470 came to be on the cretinists' list: 1470 was originally announced as being c 3my, and our cretinists are still behind the times.

I'll check what Klein has to say about the dating methods of it too... if I ever go home tonight (now 5.30pm, still in the office...)

Cheers, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:34 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.